An Adventure with a Genius eBook

He applied the same test to people who shout at one
another in the streets, who whistle at the top of
their lungs, or leave doors to slam in the faces of
those behind them.

His resentment against these practices was made the
more bitter by the knowledge that he was absolutely
helpless in the matter whenever he came within hearing
distance of an ill-bred person.

There was yet another element in this which added
to his misery. He said to me once, when we had
been driven off the plage at Mentone by two American
tourists of the worst type, who at a hundred yards’
distance from each other were yelling their views
as to which hotel they proposed to meet at for lunch,
“I can never forget that when I was a young man
in the full vigor of my health I used to regard other
people’s complaints about noise as being merely
an affectation. I would even make a noise deliberately
in order to annoy any one who forced the absurd pretense
upon my notice. Well, Mr. Ireland, I swear my
punishment has been heavy enough.”

To revert, however, to Mr. Pulitzer’s dependence
on those around him, it must be remembered that nothing
could reach him except through the medium of speech.
The state of his bank account, the condition of his
investments, the reports about The World, his business
correspondence, the daily news in which he was so
deeply interested, everything upon which he based
his relation with the affairs of life he had to accept
at second hand.

It might be supposed that under these circumstances
Mr. Pulitzer was easily deceived, that when there
was no evil intention, for instance, but simply a
desire to spare him annoyance, the exercise of a little
ingenuity could shield him from anything likely to
wound his feelings or excite his anger. As a
matter of fact I have never known a man upon whom
it would not have been easier to practice a deception.
His blindness, so far from being a hindrance to him
in reaching the truth, was an aid.

Two instances will serve to illustrate the point.
Suppose that I found in the morning paper an article
which I thought would stir J. P. up and spoil his
day: when I was called to read to him I had no
means of knowing whether the man whom I replaced had
taken the same view as myself and had skipped the
article or whether he had, deliberately or inadvertently,
read it to him. The same argument applied to the
man who was to follow me. If I read the article
to him I might find out later that my predecessor
had omitted it, or, if I omitted it, that my successor
had read it.

In either event one of us would be in the wrong; and
it was impossible to tell in advance whether the man
who read it would be blamed for lack of discretion
or praised for his good judgment, as everything depended
upon the exact mood in which Mr. Pulitzer happened
to be.

It was an awkward dilemma for the secretary, for,
if he did not read it and another man did, Mr. Pulitzer
might very well interpret the first man’s caution
as an effort to hoodwink him, or the second man’s
boldness as an exhibition of indifference to his feelings,
or, what was more likely still, fasten one fault upon
one man and the other upon the other.